They're hearing arguments on the constitutionality of DOMA today, so even if Prop 8 is only dealt with very narrowly (e.g. the defendant has no standing to appeal it to SCOTUS, or something like that) there's still a chance for a more significant and nationwide-ruling on gay marriage.

SOTOMAYOR: Aside from marriage, do you think the government can discriminate against gays and lesbians?

COOPER: No, that would be wrong.

SOTOMAYOR: Then what the actual fuck are you doing standing up here?

COOPER: Ah. Aha ha. Did I say, “no”? I meant yes! I thought you meant, you know, discriminate without reason. I realize I’m a high-powered lawyer who should not have been confused by that question, but everyone makes mistakes. Sure, the state can discriminate. But it has to have a really good reason.

KAGAN: So what’s the reason here? Looks like it’s all about procreation.

COOPER: Indeed. Gays and lesbians—sad fact, they cannot procreate.

KAGAN: Yeah, that explains the reason for marriage. What’s the reason for excluding gays and lesbians from marriage?

COOPER: …

KAGAN: Because, see, they’re still gay or lesbian. They’re still out there, having relationships with each other. They’re not going to start procreating.

COOPER: No, probably not.

KAGAN: So they get excluded because…

COOPER: Traditional bedrock of society. Let me say the words traditional and bedrock a couple more times. It’s really all about the tradition. And the nostalgia. The tradition of marriage is one of rearing children together, you know. And we don’t want to disrupt society by making marriage about anything else, like love or affection between two adults.

COOPER: We really don’t know. Gay marriage is so new. We have no evidence. It could be that gay marriage will cause aliens to descend on this planet and eat the flesh of all children under the age of sixteen. Or maybe not. We just don’t know. We have to think of the children.

KENNEDY: This is extremely persuasive to me.

KAGAN: So what you’re saying is that when there are no longer children to think of, no marriage?

COOPER: Precisely.

KAGAN: So a state could pass a law refusing to recognize a marriage between people who are both over 55?

COOPER: No, because they could procreate!

KAGAN: I have checked with my girl parts, and they assure me this is not possible.

COOPER: But the dude can procreate. Dudes can always procreate. With…with…maybe…uh…

KAGAN: We are talking about opposite sex marriage here? Two people involved? One of them providing eggs?

COOPER: I’m super-uncomfortable with this discussion of lady bits. Let’s just say, in that case, marriage becomes about making sure the dude does NOT procreate, because, see, he’s married to someone who can’t procreate, and so the interest of fidelity keeps him not procreating in a responsible fashion…

KAGAN: So the state has a marriage interest in both people who procreate and people who don’t procreate. Why is there not the same interest for gays and lesbians?

COOPER: …Oh, wow, would you look at the time! It’s someone else’s turn to talk.

For a moment I though it was real. The "fuck" and the aliens and other things pointed in the parody direction but I try to not make assumptions, just in case. Plus, you are a bit crazy there in the USA xD_________________Be mellow
Be compassionate

our legal culture and system is actually amazingly sane compared to the way most of the rest of the world does judicial systems. we may border on a few dysfunctions but few other countries have produced a better system overall on the federal level.

speaking of which does the english system still have the like, fucking wigs and whatever

anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe"

i always love hearing this argument from a mormon.

couldn't get through the whole thing, but the whole argument about "hey, _anyone_ can get married! just not to someone they actually love!" is also an interesting one...again, especially from a mormon. yeah, yeah, i know, the leadership has declared that the guys who founded the religion were wrong about something they put down as a guiding principle, and what's-his-name, the guy who got nailed for marrying girls against their wills to the men he chose for them, guys like that are definitely not mormons no matter what they say they are. definitely not.

i was thinking it was going to be the same argument i heard when prop 8 was on the ballot, which was basically that if we allowed gay marriage then everyone would get gay married, and there would be no more children born ever and civilization would collapse. this always raises (for me) an immediate question about the state of their own marriage. would these people have gotten gay-married themselves, had that been an option, and are they now trapped in loveless marriages with someone they find to be an alien other? card seems to base his case on the ideas that 1) each gender finds it easiest and most comfortable to be with members of their own gender, who understand them, and so we do not willing come together with the other sex and 2) humans are driven by the unshakeable biological imperatives for a) males to mate with as many females as possible, as they find them sexually irresistible and b) females to mate with the wealthiest possible male, whether or not he already has a mate, because they find his wealth irresistible, so we have to force everybody to pick just one and stay with them. so basically: we can't stand each other, but we find each other irresistible and so must be forced together by matrimony and kept from screwing as many members of the opposite sex as we can (also by matrimony). really - what must his marriage be like? (although one suspects he knows his wife only married him for his money).

clearly, none of these people have ever actually fallen in love, or have seen any couples who have been married for decades and yet clearly still adore their spouse, even though the children are long gone. and yeah - if it's really all about just forcing people together so they have and raise kids, why not automatically release them to do what they want with whom they want once the kids hit 21? you think letting people who might not otherwise have procreated at all get married will destroy society - what do you think would happen if you really made marriage all about pushing out more kids? and the hell with any needs the adults might have._________________aka: neverscared!

so you can never be sure which way the court will jump, but the betting seems to be that doma is doomed . if they base this decision on leaving the matter up to the states rather than letting the federal government determine things, then it seems like they should decide they lack jurisdiction in the prop 8 case, which essential leaves same-sex marriage legal in california, and leaves the way open for other states to make it legal (and eventually, they will have to, if they really worship the god of competition - who wants to go work in a state where your marriage could suddenly be declared illegitimate?)

“Just for a moment, put yourself in my shoes and try to imagine how difficult it is to know that the elevated social standing that I so unjustly enjoy is at stake. We have come too far and worked too hard to make sure that gays are second-class citizens, and all we’re asking for is basic unfairness. After all, isn’t that what this country is founded on?” Forgoing their typical months of deliberation, the justices issued an immediate 9-0

Ahahahahahah! I cant read the onion again in the office!_________________Be mellow
Be compassionate